ADAM WAS NOT DECIEVED - THE SPIRITUAL REASON WHY

[Eddie Ramos]

The message of the gospel is the central thread which runs through every account in the Bible. The problem is that because the gospel is the spiritual message of the Bible, it is often concealed within the literal account of historical events in the Bible. The Bible refers to is as the spiritual meaning which can be seen by God's people if they search for it. One such example is that of the fall of Adam and Eve. On the surface, we see the serpent talking with Eve. But why did Satan specifically go after Eve and not Adam? Because of who each of them represent spiritually. The Bible tells us that Adam was a figure or typified Christ.

Romans 5:14 (KJV 1900)
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Since Adam spiritually represented Christ, then Eve (Adam's wife) represented the bride of Christ (the true believers).

2 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV 1900)
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Using this spiritual comparison, now we can see why Satan targeted Eve, because Eve, the wife (like the true believers) was the weaker vessel.

Thus Satan deceived Eve into sinning. Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't.

1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV 1900)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Well, if Adam was not deceived, then why did he also sin? Well, if we keep the spiritual picture in mind of who they represent, then this scripture comes to mind.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV 1900)
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Adam was not deceived into sinning, he sinned willingly because his wife sinned. In other words, he who knew no sin (like Christ) became sin because his wife (the true believers) had become sin. And his punishment was death.

Genesis 3:17–19 (KJV 1900)
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Can anyone see the spiritual picture of the gospel in the account of the fall of mankind per the scriptures?

[Eddie Ramos]

Christian: One does not have to be personally instructed by the lawgiver to be guilty of disobedience.

William: One does however, have to be personally instructed on what the law is, before one can be guilty of breaking said law. Show us who gave Eve the instruction on the law - Where ? Chapter and verse.

Actually, in this case, Christian is correct. The Bible teaches us that if there is a law that God has given and yet people are ignorant of that law, that they are still guilty, even though they don't know that they broke any law.

Leviticus 5:17 (KJV 1900)
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

This was not the case with Eve though, for she knew what the law was because she repeated it to the serpent. Not only did she know what was forbidden, but she also knew what exactly was allowed.

Genesis 3:2–3 (KJV 1900)
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And although there is no direct statement telling us who told Eve (Adam or God), if we can rely on the scriptures and God's laws, then it was the role of the husband, Adam, to instruct his wife, the same way it's Christ's role (as our spiritual husband, to instruct his bride, the eternal church).

1 Corinthians 14:34–35 (KJV 1900)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Christian: The prohibition originated with God, so however Eve's knowledge of the law came about, her disobedience was in direct defiance of the God that issued the prohibition.

William: Show the evidence to support that Eve knew what the law given, was.
Where ? Chapter and verse?

Christian is once again correct here because, as shown above (Gen 3:2-3), Eve quoted what God has allowed and forbidden. So, she certainly knew.

Christian: The text clearly and explicitly depicts Eve as disobeying the law.

William: Show us the script where Eve was convicted by the lawgiver of being disobedient.
Where ? Chapter and verse.

Eve certainly disobeyed God's law and as a result, her soul died. Moreover, God gave additional judgments against her.

Genesis 3:16 (KJV 1900)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Christian: When Adam defended himself he identified Eve as the one whom God had given...

William: "Whom GOD had given 'what'?
[Incomplete statements are unhelpful]

No where does the scripture allude that Adam was defending himself. This is inferred by Christian because that's what we as people would likely do. But this is the Bible, and it is God breathed, therefore we can't approach it with the understanding of what we would have done. Based on the information we are given, al we can conclude is that Adam told the truth.

Genesis 3:11–12 (KJV 1900)
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Adam was not deceived by anyone, he ate willingly, so we have no scriptural basis to say that he was defending himself. But we can be sure that because Adam represented Christ, that he willingly became sin, who knew no sin. So there was no reason to cast blame or to try and defend his actions.

Christian: There is little doubt they were both aware that YHWH (Jehovah) was the Creator of all things; the universal "Father"and lifegiver.

William: Show us how Eve was made aware that אני זה שאני was the Creator of all things; the universal "Father" and "lifegiver"?
Where ? Chapter and verse.

If what you say can be supported with evidence, I will withdraw my assertions.
[/quote]

Christian is correct. There is not only little doubt, but there is absolute certainty that both Adam and Eve knew that God was the creator of all things and the life giver.

Romans 1:19–20 (KJV 1900)
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I hope this helps.

[William]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #41]

Christian: One does not have to be personally instructed by the lawgiver to be guilty of disobedience.

William: One does however, have to be personally instructed on what the law is, before one can be guilty of breaking said law. Show us who gave Eve the instruction on the law - Where ? Chapter and verse.

Eddie: Actually, in this case, Christian is correct. The Bible teaches us that if there is a law that god has given and yet people are ignorant of that law, that they are still guilty, even though they don't know that they broke any law.

William: Well that is also true of many state laws. Ignorance is no excuse. Is that how the Bible God works His Justice?
Or is the whole point of justice, making sure Humans are aware of His Laws before going about punishing offenders?

If the former, then yes. The Christian is correct as you say.
If no, then lets put that potential confusion to one side.

This was not the case with Eve though, for she knew what the law was because she repeated it to the serpent. Not only did she know what was forbidden, but she also knew what exactly was allowed.

What we have in the evidence presented, is an indication that Eve had been misinformed.
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Show me the instruction where the God delivers the law, and we shall compare them for accuracy.

Although there is no direct statement telling us who told Eve (Adam or God), if we can rely on the scriptures and God's laws, then it was the role of the husband, Adam, to instruct his wife, the same way it's Christ's role (as our spiritual husband, to instruct his bride, the eternal church).

I can accept on the face of it, that the Biblical God built Man for that purpose, and since there is no record of the God instructing Eve, I can accept that it was - more likely - the Man's responsibility to correctly convey the information to his Wife

William: Show the evidence to support that Eve knew what the law given, was.
Where ? Chapter and verse?

Christian is once again correct here because, as shown (Gen 3:2-3), Eve quoted what God has allowed and forbidden. So, she certainly knew.

Please make up your mind then. Was it the God Eve was quoting, or the Husband?

If it was the Husband, then Eve was quoting the Husband, NOT the God.

I will accept that She certainly knew the instruction given to Her by Her Husband and faithfully relayed that information to the Serpent.
I am currently dubious that the Husband faithfully relayed the information he got from the God, to the Wife.

Eve certainly disobeyed God's law and as a result, her soul died. Moreover, God gave additional judgments against her.

None of has certainly been established yet. We have yet to compare what the God told the Man, with what the Husband told the Wife.

What I was asking for as well, was the evidence supporting that the God told the Woman that she was 'guilty of disobeying' the God.

[Eddie Ramos]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #41]

This was not the case with Eve though, for she knew what the law was because she repeated it to the serpent. Not only did she know what was forbidden, but she also knew what exactly was allowed.

What we have in the evidence presented, is an indication that Eve had been misinformed.
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Show me the instruction where the God delivers the law, and we shall compare them for accuracy.

William: Show the evidence to support that Eve knew what the law given, was.
Where ? Chapter and verse?

Christian is once again correct here because, as shown (Gen 3:2-3), Eve quoted what God has allowed and forbidden. So, she certainly knew.

Please make up your mind then. Was it the God Eve was quoting, or the Husband?

If it was the Husband, then Eve was quoting the Husband, NOT the God.

I will accept that She certainly knew the instruction given to Her by Her Husband and faithfully relayed that information to the Serpent.
I am currently dubious that the Husband faithfully relayed the information he got from the God, to the Wife.

Eve certainly disobeyed God's law and as a result, her soul died. Moreover, God gave additional judgments against her.

None of has certainly been established yet. We have yet to compare what the God told the Man, with what the Husband told the Wife.

What I was asking for as well, was the evidence supporting that the God told the Woman that she was 'guilty of disobeying' the God.

Ok, so if I am understanding your questions, you want to know why God's instructions did not match exactly with what Eve said, does this therefore mean that Eve was misinformed by Adam? Here are the two times the law is mentioned:

Genesis 2:16–17 (KJV 1900)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And here we see Eve repeating God's law to the serpent:

Genesis 3:2–3 (KJV 1900)
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Now before we get carried away and assume that this are not the same law, or that Eve was misinformed, we have to let the Bible interpret itself. And when we look for laws which God gave, and then those same laws were quoted elsewhere in the Bible, then it doesn't mean that the one who quoted the original law and added something to it, was mistaken for doing so. The whole of the scriptures came from the mouth of God, so man did not add anything that God did not intend to be written in his Word. Therefore, when a command is quoted elsewhere in the Bible, and something in the quote has changed, it's because God is teaching us an important truth, by allowing it to be quoted another way. He's expounding on how we are to understand what was originally said. For example:

God said:
Deuteronomy 6:5 (KJV 1900)
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

God quotes himself in the New Testament:
Matthew 22:37 (KJV 1900)
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

If you notice, the two last words are not the same. But that does not make the quoted verse by Jesus incorrect. He does this throughout the Bible to amplify our understanding of what the original law meant. To love the Lord with all thy might, means to love him exceedingly greatly. And to love him with all thy mind means to love him with understanding. So, what seems like an addition or alteration, is actually for the purpose of clarification and further understanding. The same applies with what Eve said. God did in fact say that they were not to eat of it. But, would it have ok for them to tempt themselves and touch it without actually eating it? The law only stated that they were not to eat of it, but when Eve quoted it, she did so with the understanding that one thing (touching it) would lead to another (eating it). And that's exactly what happened.

She didn't touch it and put it back. She touched it (took of it) and ate, which is what killed her. And I showed you where God told the woman she was guilty.

Genesis 3:13 (KJV 1900)
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

And then God pronounces her additional judgments against her.

Genesis 3:16 (KJV 1900)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[JehovahsWitness]

William: One does however, have to be personally instructed on what the law is, before one can be guilty of breaking said law. Show us who gave Eve the instruction on the law - Where ? Chapter and verse.

WAS EVE IGNORANT OF THE LAW?

One does not have to be "personally instructed" to be liable, one has to know (and be capable of understanding) the law to be held accountable to it. Eve quoted the law and explicitly stated she understood it was illegal to eat from the tree; thus it is evident she both knew and understood the law.

GENESIS 3: 2, 3

At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.+ 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden:+ ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’”

How she came to have the knowledge is irrelevant, what is relevant is according to Genesis Chapter 3 verese 3, she understood there was a law from God that prohibited eating from that particular tree.







JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

For more details please go to other posts related to...

.THE GARDEN OF EDEN , ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[William]

Now before we get carried away and assume that this are not the same law, or that Eve was misinformed, we have to let the Bible interpret itself.

No, we do not. A book is an unconscious object and therefore cannot interpret itself and has to be interpreted by a conscious person.

This is a question of law and and accusation that Eve disobeyed the God and that the God announced Eve 'guilty of disobedience' and should be treated with the same care to attention as we would expect in any court of law.

My objection to your argument is that the rest of the Bible may well likely written by men inspired by the idea that Eve disobeyed the God and was pronounced by the God as being guilty of disobedience, rather than being misinformed through her Husbands sin of adding to the God law regarding the forbidden fruit.

Therefore, the rest of the bible cannot be held as any kind of evidence until it is shown that Eve most definitely was NOT given misleading information, which could have helped cause her to make a bad judgement.

The evidence clearly alludes to it being the case that Adams sin was [along with other things] to add to the words the God had commanded.

To love the Lord with all thy might, means to love him exceedingly greatly. And to love him with all thy mind means to love him with understanding. So, what seems like an addition or alteration, is actually for the purpose of clarification and further understanding. The same applies with what Eve said. God did in fact say that they were not to eat of it. But, would it have ok for them to tempt themselves and touch it without actually eating it? The law only stated that they were not to eat of it, but when Eve quoted it, she did so with the understanding that one thing (touching it) would lead to another (eating it). And that's exactly what happened.

Given that there is no way to eat fruit without touching it, this is unlikely to have been the reason why Eves Husband added that part to the command he was given by the God.

There is little point in saying as much, because it is obvious.

There is another possible reason for why the Husband added to the command, as per what the story reveals.
The Husband was with his wife the whole time that the temptation was going down, and not once are we informed that he made any protest, reminded his Wife not to eat of the forbidden fruit - told the Serpent to shut up - stuff like that.

Thus, one is compelled to ask 'why?' and in that, find it reasonable to suspect that the Husband coveted the fruit but was too afraid to eat it until "someone else" first tried it.
That would explain the Husband's silence and subsequent ready acceptance of the fruit from his Wife, after she taken the first bite.

No death occurred in the moment, thus adding evidence to the Serpents claim "you shall not surely die".

[JehovahsWitness]

What we have in the evidence presented, is an indication that Eve had been misinformed.
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

How do you know this was misinformation? What evidence do you have that God did not tell her/them not to touch the tree. He may well have added the clause as a safeguard, we cannot prove from the text that He did NOT.

Was it the God Eve was quoting, or the Husband?

Is there any reason why it could not have been both?

In any case, the clause not to touch the tree is implicit in the prohibition since it reasonably means do not touch it with the intention to take its fruit.

To illustrate a woman might warn a person with lecherous intention "Don't touch me!" She would probably not objected to shaking his hand but she means not to touch her in an intimate way that introduces uninvited sexual attention.

CONCLUSION We don't know if it was Adam that added the clause, and even if he did he may well have gotten the information from God or understood it was implicit in the original prohibition. There is certainly no way to prove it was misinformation.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #44]

If you read the other posts, you will notice that there is the question of her instructor adding to the command plus other evidence which supports the idea that her husband was using her for his own purposes, rather than for the purposes she was created for.

There is no denying that Eve was guilty of something, but we are not told what that actually was, and the God does not say. Rather the God only asks, "what have you done?" and the question appears rhetorical because as the story goes, there was no time given for any defense and judgement was simply handed out in the form of punishment.

It appears to be a case of being punished for being too gullible and remaining ignorant of being used inappropriately.
Since we are informed that Eve wanted to eat the fruit too, we can explain why she remained - shall we say...willfully ignorant and perhaps the sincere love of a Husband was as unimportant to her as it apparently was to Adam.

Given what we are informed of re the God - love doesn't seem to be part of that story at all as no example of love has been identified therein.

Or maybe it was some kind of love which isn't obvious...

Perhaps it was a helpful thing in the end else we would all be walking around naked and doing questionable things to which we simple knew no better...

Or perhaps it is simply a fireside story never meant to be taken as a literal historical event...

[William]

What we have in the evidence presented, is an indication that Eve had been misinformed.
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

How do you know this was misinformation? What evidence do you have that God did not tell her/them not to touch the tree. He may well have added the clause, we cannot prove from' the text that he did NOT.

What evidence do we have that the Serpent wasn't a well known and trusted personality whom the couple had been aware of for many years?
What evidence do we have that the trio had often sat under the stars at night contemplating the significance of the Tree of Knowledge of something they knew nothing about?
What evidence do we have that the God did not visits every weekend and teach them things?

These things may well have happened, yes. But because they are not recorded in the actual story, we have to deal with the story as it has been presented.

In any case, the clause not to touch the tree is implicit in the prohibition since it would be impossible to eat from the tree without touching it.

point being, since it is implicit in the prohibition. there should have been no reason for it to have been mentioned at all.

It could be that Eve made that part up on the spot - but since we are informed that her Husband was there with her and the Serpent, and since Adam made no effort to correct Eve on the matter, by pointing out the obvious, we can reasonably assume that she likely got the idea from Adam in the first place and in eventually reaching up and touching the fruit - experiencing no harm in that action - add to that, the presence of her Husband - would have made the eating of the fruit less the ordeal, psychologically speaking as well as explain why Adam had no problem in accepting the fruit from Eve, once is was apparent no harm had befallen her.

Adam wasn't protesting or concerned for her well-being, so what did she have to be concerned about?

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no denying that Eve was guilty of something, but we are not told what that actually was

We dont need to be told ; all that'is needed it critical thinking skills and an ability to read

1. There is a prohibition on anyone eating from a particular tree. The penalty for eating from said tree is ... death.

2. Eve made it clear she understood the law but ate from the tree thus breaking the law

3. God judged her adversely, cast her and her husband outside of the garden and eventually they both died

Logically she was guilty of breaking the law that prohibited eating from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad.

[JehovahsWitness]

What evidence do we have that the Serpant wasn't a well known and trusted personality whom the couple had been aware of for many years?

The way the serpent is introduced as the most cautious of animals, indicates whoever hid beind the creature had been discretely observing his target for some time. His initial question would be somewhat redundant had they been intimate long term aquaintences.

And whatever the nature of their aquaintence, the Serpent could not have pretended to be their Father and Creator so he was not their life giver and could neither pull rank on YHWH (Jehovah) nor claim to have demonstrated the loving care of the latter. The couple's disloyalty to God remains evident whether they knew the angel, knew OF him or (as is more likely) was a total stranger to them


JW

For more details please go to other posts related to...

SATAN THE DEVIL , ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE